Mumbai Court April 2015 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Union of India Through Executive Engineer, Mumbai Central Division No. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 6th March 2013 allowing some of the claims made by the respondent and rejecting the counter claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The respondent was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings whereas the petitioner herein was the original respondent. Pursuant to a notice inviting tenders issued by the petitioner, the respondent submitted its bid for providing and fixing vitrified tiles flooring over existing flooring from ground to sixth floor at Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. 3. On 22nd July 2010, the petitioner issued a letter of acceptance in favour of the respondent in respect of the said work. The petitioner requested the respondent to arrange to start the work at once as 12 months time was given for completing the same. The b...
Ganpat Bakaramji Lad Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 14th September, 2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Amravati, in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 2011, by which the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, the present appeal was filed by the appellant. Facts : 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that deceased Manisha alias Manorama was married to appellant-accused Ganpat Lad nine years before the incident. Two daughters and a son were born out of the wedlock. The appellant was ill-treating his wife since after marriage by assaulting her under the influence of liquor and she used to go to the house of her brother Anil Pohane and used to inform him about the drinking habit of appellant Ganpat and assaulting her on trifle matters. Appellant was given un...
Marathon Next Gen Realty Limited and Another Vs. The Competent Authori ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners-Owners-Developers of land bearing Survey No. C.S. No. 2/142, Veer Santaji Lane, Opposite G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, admeasuring 35499.83 sq. mtrs. (the whole land) have challenged order and certificate dated 22 November 2013 passed by the Competent Authority (Respondent No.1) under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short, MOFA ), thereby allowed an Application filed by Respondent No.2 a Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (`the society' ) for unilateral deemed conveyance of the whole land by overlooking the fact of incompletion of remaining projects/buildings named `Innova' and `Icon' and others, which are also part of the whole land. The entitlement/rights of members of other apartment/flats as they have agreed to be governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (for sho...
Gnyanoba Tejrao Hake Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition takes an exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 06.05.2011, in Original Application No.270/2011, and also to the termination order dated 03.02.2004 issued by the respondent No.3 and the impugned communication dated 26.09.2008 issued by the respondent No.1, with further prayer for reinstatement in service with continuity of service from the date of termination and pay petitioner all the consequential benefits as per the seniority. It is also alternatively prayed that, the respondents be directed to act upon the directions issued by the respondent No.1, to the respondent No.3 dated 31.08.2005 and the petitioner be appointed afresh without giving him the benefit of his past service with the respondent No.3. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has passed H.S.C. Examination. The respondent No.3 issued an adve...
Archana and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Ak ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Members of Muley family have approached this Court in these two petitions with contention that acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.3-Municipal Council, Akola (now, Municipal Corporation) and undertaken by respondent No.2-Special Land Acquisition Officer in relation to plot No.33/1, Sheet No. 40A situated at Ward No.27, Akola have lapsed. The State Government is respondent No.1 while Special Land Acquisition Officer is respondent No.2 in both the matters. Chief Officer of Municipal Council is respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1998 while Municipal Council is respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 789 of 2001. One of the tenants in the property sought to be acquired namely Sharad Vinayak Dixit has been permitted to intervene on 13/8/2002 in Writ Petition No. 789 of 2001. Civil Application No. 3938 of 2000 moved by very same person in Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1998 is still pending and is to be considered at the stage of fi...
Marathon Next Gen Realty Limited and Another Vs. The Competent Authori ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners-Owners-Developers of land bearing Survey No. C.S. No. 2/142, Veer Santaji Lane, Opposite G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, admeasuring 35499.83 sq. mtrs. (the whole land) have challenged order and certificate dated 22 November 2013 passed by the Competent Authority (Respondent No.1) under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short, MOFA ), thereby allowed an Application filed by Respondent No.2 a Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (`the society' ) for unilateral deemed conveyance of the whole land by overlooking the fact of incompletion of remaining projects/buildings named `Innova' and `Icon' and others, which are also part of the whole land. The entitlement/rights of members of other apartment/flats as they have agreed to be governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (for sho...
Vilasrao Bhauso Shinde Vs. Sangli District Central Co-operative Bank a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. At the outset the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners seeks leave to amend the cause title of the above Writ Petition so as to make a reference to Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule, considering the challenge raised in the above Writ Petition made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The writ jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 9/4/2015 passed by the State Government i.e. the Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, Government of Maharashtra by which order the application for stay filed by the Petitioners in the Revision Application filed by them against the order dated 1/4/2015 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur came to be rejected. 4. It is not necessary to cite unnecessary details considering the challenge raised in the above P...
Meera Sidharth Kambli and Others Vs. Viraj Ekawade, (rider of car) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellants/original claimants against the judgment, order award dated 9.3.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Mapusa, (Presiding Officer for short) in Caim Petition No. 53/2009, by which the claim petition of the appellants is dismissed with no order as to costs. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Parties are referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised as follows:- The claimants i.e widow, son and daughter of the deceased Sidharth Pandurang Kambli have filed an application under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act for short) claiming compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) from the respondent nos. 1 to 3 being driver, owner and insurer of the matiz car bearing registration no.GA-01-R-1674. 4. It is contended by the claimants that on 1.6.2009 at about 13.10hours on NH17a Go...
Deelip and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. Writ Petition No. 514 of 2015 is filed with following prayers: B. The impugned Judgment and Order dtd. 4.9.2009 passed by the Ld. Member of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench Aurangabad in Original Application No. 1024/1999, may kindly be quashed and set aside and all the pensionary benefits may be given to the petitioner, by issuing writ against the respondents no.1 to 5, by treating the period 13.06.1965 to 29.06.1966 as pensionable period by condoning the broken period in service of the petitioner. C. The respondents No.1 to 5 may kindly be directed or ordered to reconsider the pensionary benefits with all the consequential benefits to the petitioner. 2. Writ Petition No. 6146 of 2014 is filed with following prayers: B. The impugned Decision/Order bearing Outward No. Pra.Ka.Na./Ashta/A-3/2013/2789 dated 03.04.2013 passed by the respondent No.3, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the period of petitioner from 13.07.1965 to 29.07.1966 may be tre...
Satish Vs. Dr. Gopal Ramnarayan Mundhada and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition at the instance of the original plaintiff takes exception to the order dated 2-4-2014 thereby deciding the preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court to consider the reliefs sought in the plaint. The relevant facts are that according to the petitioner plaintiff, there is a temple near his house in which various religious activities are regularly conducted. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 defendant Nos.1 to 3 are having their residential house near said temple. In the month of May 2013, the petitioner noticed certain construction activities going on near the residential house of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner learnt that a Hospital was being constructed at said place. According to the petitioner, the sanction for aforesaid construction that was granted by the respondent No.4 Municipal Corporation was contrary to the building bye-laws. According t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »